Context-specific “managed offload” for

mobile data traffic

A Disruptive Analysis thought-leadership paper

Commissioned by Continuous Computing

November 2010

Author: Dean Bubley

Contact: information@disruptive-analysis.com

© Disruptive Analysis Ltd, November 2010 Bearer-aware policy management 1

 Disruptive Analysis Don’t Assume

Summary: One of the most popular ways to deal with mobile broadband traffic
growth is to “offload” it, typically to WiFi access points or femtocells. Also giving
improvements in indoor coverage, these methods reduce load on the main macro-
cellular network, cost of backhaul, and can also improve users’ experience in terms
of speed.

However, the range of possible offload options is proliferating fast; they also involve a
complex mix of control by operator, end-user, device and/or third-party service
providers. This is generating a requirement for mobile broadband operators to be
more intelligent and strategic in how, where and what traffic they divert to these
alternative accesses. As operators develop their own IP-based data services, they
may wish to treat these differently to bulk Internet downloads in terms of data routing.
There is also a significant potential role for fixed and cable operators to run
“managed offload” services on behalf of the mobile carriers. Understanding and
managing offload effectively will be a key driver in future profitability and reliability of
mobile broadband services.

Background
This white paper covers a number of issues around next-generation offload of mobile
data network traffic to reduce load on operators‟ Radio Access Networks (RANs) and
core networks, as well as the role of Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) systems in
enabling this.

It has been written by the independent industry analyst and consulting firm Disruptive
Analysis, and sponsored by Continuous Computing, as part of an initiative to promote
thought-leadership, differentiation and innovative networking concepts for the mobile
broadband and network policy-management marketplace. The opinions expressed
are Disruptive Analysis‟ own, and are not specific endorsements of any vendor‟s or
operator‟s products or strategy.

Introduction

The emergence of the offload concept

The concept of mobile broadband offload first started to become a major theme in
20081. Disruptive Analysis and others noted that the bulk of mobile data on cellular
networks was originated from, or destined for, the Internet, rather than the operator‟s
own services, and was therefore unnecessary to push through all the complex core
network machinery rather than connect via a more direct and inexpensive route
straight to the Internet.

Since then, an even more pressing concern has arisen: the need to offload the RAN
because of heavy congestion from both the volume of network traffic and the
associated signalling load from smartphones and their applications. Readers will no

1
http://disruptivewireless.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-internet-offload-next-bottleneck-for.html
© Disruptive Analysis Ltd, November 2010 Bearer-aware policy management 2
 Disruptive Analysis Don’t Assume

doubt be very familiar with the general data explosion / tsunami / capacity crunch
stories, and the iconic scissors-style graphs of data volumes out-stripping growth in
revenues.

Recently, a variety of offload solutions have emerged, mostly WiFi-based, and many
intended for deployment with firefighting levels of urgency. Some of the early offload
variants have been comparatively “clunky”, especially those involving user
intervention to switch to WiFi, although improvements in connection manager
software has made this somewhat more seamless. Longer-term and more elegant
options are also now being proposed, notably with femtocells / small cells, Long
Term Evolution (LTE) or later versions of the 3GPP standards, such as SIPTO
(Selective IP Traffic Offload).

The general aim is to get as much of the low-value, bulk Internet traffic off the mobile
operator‟s network as quickly and painlessly as possible, with the lowest cost, with
the aim of reducing current congestion and delaying future capex for upgrades. And
if elements of the cost or management of the infrastructure can be borne by someone
else (e.g., the user themselves), then so much the better.

Figure: Network congestion is prompting the desire to offload data

Source: Disruptive Analysis

It is important to recognise that some forms of offload connectivity demonstrate

elasticity of demand – cheaper / faster local WiFi or femtocell connections may
actually lead to the consumption of more data, rather than just substituting for what
would have been expected over the normal macrocell / core network data path.
Perhaps as much as 50-70% of notional offload traffic may really be incremental.

Offload vs. core-network policy management

One of the paradoxes about mobile offload in the radio network is that it can work
against some of the other policy-management techniques used by the operator. This
is a common problem in traffic management where silo solutions are deployed in one
part of an operator‟s system to solve a specific issue or bottleneck – but inadvertently
cause “collateral damage” elsewhere.

© Disruptive Analysis Ltd, November 2010 Bearer-aware policy management 3

 Disruptive Analysis Don’t Assume

In this instance, many of the DPI and policy boxes have been deployed “deep” in the
network – either integral to GGSNs (Gateway GPRS Support Nodes), or between
them and the Internet. This is much easier than deploying them in the RAN, as traffic
is centralised on those links and so fewer elements are needed. The problem is that
these boxes are not necessarily aware of RAN conditions, and especially offload
activities, taking place closer to the end-user.

For example, there is no real reason to compress or transcode video delivered via a
femtocell, as it will not be contributing to macro radio network load. Worse still, it may
mean that direct comparisons of image quality and download speed between (non-
operator visible) WiFi and the femto, on the same broadband line, are unfavourable.
So in scenarios where management servers are trying to limit congestion on the air
interface, they may not be in possession of the full facts in order to make the right
decisions policy-wise.

In other words, offloaded traffic may still cause congestion somewhere, but not at the
point that many DPI solutions would be aware of it. Disruptive Analysis believes that
for this reason, standalone solutions for traffic management, especially in the core
network (typically on the Gi interface), are going to become less useful over time.
Instead, more holistic solutions make sense, where those DPI or policy servers are
still used for specific tasks (such as video optimisation for operator / Internet mash-up
services), but work collaboratively with other sub-systems to combat outright levels of
RAN congestion. There will also be a shift towards deploying traffic management at
RAN or aggregation levels, rather than just in the core.

Offload variants
A major complexity is the ongoing proliferation of offload sub-categories, and the use
of the term fairly indiscriminately to group together a wide range of scenarios. The
most important include:

 Unmanaged WiFi offload in the home or office, where data traffic from a
mobile device (e.g., smartphone) is converted into just another stream of bits
over the main fixed broadband heading for the Internet, as if it were another
fixed PC connected to the modem. The operator has no responsibility or
direct cost for the connection to the Internet, although it may configure the
device‟s software or hardware to make this possible or even forced.
Theoretically, it is possible to perform unmanaged local offload with
femtocells, but forthcoming standards such as LIPA (Local IP Access) are
likely to involve the operator in the process, as legal responsibility for the last
metres of access using licensed spectrum usually still reside with them.

 Direct-managed offload in home / office, where the network operator

retains some level of control and visibility over traffic offloaded from the
device, over WiFi or femtocell. “Management” could involve policy control
over when and how offload is conducted, or which traffic is diverted to bypass
the operator‟s own network. It could also involve aspects of lawful intercept –
particular for femtos using licensed spectrum. New standards such as SIPTO
are relevant here.

 Public WiFi offload. Increasingly, mobile operators are building networks of

WiFi hotspots, or partnering with existing Wireless Internet Service Providers
(WISPs) and aggregators such as Boingo or BT Openzone. A variety of
software techniques such as WISPr2.0 help user devices connect to available

© Disruptive Analysis Ltd, November 2010 Bearer-aware policy management 4

 Disruptive Analysis Don’t Assume

WiFi access points where possible, although often the offload traffic is not
subject to the mobile operator‟s detailed policies.

 Small cell offload. It is likely that some use of public mobile femtocells (or
other “small cells”) will also emerge in the medium term, either in single-
operator form, or shared, perhaps via roaming arrangements. In 2010, the
femtocell industry has started focusing beyond residential access points,
towards larger, outdoor-oriented cells, seen as a cheaper and more
distributed alternative than traditional microcells and picocells. Variously
called picocells, greater femtos, superfemtos, small cells and even macro-
femtos, the principle is much the same. They are intended to support capacity
addition or offload in dense areas, or to provide coverage in more remote
regions, with the aid of inexpensive IP connections and minimal
administration overhead in installation and provisioning.

 3rd-party managed offload. In this scenario, the offloaded traffic over the
broadband line (from WiFi or femto in the home), is identified by the fixed
operator as being related to the mobile device and the operator. This would
typically take place at the local exchange or cable head-end. The fixed / cable
operator (which may be independent from the cellular provider) is involved,
separating out certain traffic streams and diverting them away from the
cellular core network. There may be a contractual relationship between the
two service providers.

 Offload in the MNO’s transport network. Both femtocell and macrocell

traffic can be direct-connected to the Internet from the transport network,
rather than transiting the whole expensive core infrastructure. Breaking out
Internet traffic in this way reduces expenditure on upgrading SGSN / GGSN
elements. This is another use-case for SIPTO, as well as various other
proprietary architectures. In some cases, the offload may be performed by a
3rd-party transport provider (e.g., long-haul fibre), rather than the mobile
operator‟s own aggregation infrastructure.

Managed vs. unmanaged offload

From a mobile operator perspective, the main problem with unmanaged approaches
to data offload is unpredictability. Where the operator is also the provider of WiFi
hotspot services, or runs the user‟s own home broadband connection with a femto or
WiFi capability, it is (theoretically) able to control the offload connection from end-to-
end. It can put in place mechanisms to ensure adequate QoS, monitoring
performance and ideally prioritising traffic against other flows. Potentially, it may also
control the connection management software on the device in order to „force‟ traffic
through the lowest-cost or least-congested connection.

In the real world, the number of homes that might realistically have a single operator
for both fixed broadband and all the household‟s various mobile devices is quite
small. While family plans can be attractive, they are unlikely to be ubiquitous or
complete. Some individuals may have company-issued devices, others may want
operator-specific exclusives. As we move towards multiple devices per person (and
niche products such as consumer electronics with embedded modems), the idea of a
single operator becomes ever more remote.

© Disruptive Analysis Ltd, November 2010 Bearer-aware policy management 5

 Disruptive Analysis Don’t Assume

Thus there will inevitably be many situations in which one mobile operator‟s traffic is
offloaded onto another‟s network. This means it faces uncertainties in setup,
contention against other applications running on the network, and the potential for
service interruption or interception. Tensions are inevitable where a given fixed +
mobile broadband operator is expected to support access from one of its direct rivals‟
femtocells, or via a MiFi-style personal hotspot.

Figure: Unmanaged offload via third-party network may cause problems

Source: Disruptive Analysis

There is also the future threat of fixed / cable operators blocking or degrading offload
traffic – especially in those ironic cases where mobile operators themselves have
campaigned against Net Neutrality. Implementing similar DPI techniques to mobile
operators, it could even be possible to discriminate on the basis of end-devices
supplied by particular operators.

Shared-offload networks

As well fixed and cable operators becoming involved in managed offload, another
scenario is also becoming more likely: that of shared networks co-owned by a
number of mobile carriers, or perhaps outsourced to a 3rd party such as a large
vendor or managed services firm. Macro RAN sharing and outsourcing is already
becoming quite common in some places, and it is possible that femto-sharing may
also evolve in coming years. There are multiple architectures and ways of organising
such operations, ranging from simple co-location on towers, through in-country
roaming, to full sharing of active network infrastructure elements between multiple
service providers.

In many senses, de-facto networking sharing has also existed for years through
Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) arrangements, with various retail operators
effectively purchasing wholesale capacity on a host network.

This area is likely to expand in complexity in coming years, as more innovative

wholesale and infrastructure-ownership schemes are adopted. Various existing
frequency bands are not large enough for 4 or 5 operators to share in wide-enough

© Disruptive Analysis Ltd, November 2010 Bearer-aware policy management 6

 Disruptive Analysis Don’t Assume

allocations for the fastest implementations of LTE, while some territories are
deliberately pursuing a path of wholesale mobile in the same fashion as open-access
fibre.

Whether this is all termed “offload” in general is largely a matter of semantics, but it
seems likely that specific femtocell implementations will occur anyway, which
certainly will need improved management by the host service provider.

The role of DPI & policy in next-gen offload

A broad range of issues & problems

The previous sections highlight the growing fragmentation of the overall offload
concept. Coupled with the interaction between network element, smartphones and
third-party elements (such as connection management software), it seems inevitable
that operators‟ policy infrastructure will need to grow more intelligent to cope with the
various scenarios that will emerge.

Detecting users, locations, applications or device type via DPI will become important
in determining overall offload strategy, as well as (eventually) making granular
decisions on the optimal routes for particular traffic in real-time. Device awareness,
for example, may be an indicator of the user-friendliness of the WiFi implementation.
Application-awareness may also be important, especially if the operator is working
with an Internet or cloud-computing partner that is somehow optimised for one bearer
type, or which is perhaps designed to work differently in specific contexts.

In the managed-offload scenario, when either a 3rd-party fixed operator or a RAN-

sharing consortium is involved in providing services to the host operator, there is an
argument for that outsourcing provider to have its own mobile-focused DPI
capabilities. While they may already have their own DPI facilities for fixed-broadband
control (e.g., Peer-to-Peer (P2P) throttling), it is possible that this is not optimal for
mobile-oriented task, such as device-type detection. In particular, it may be important
for the fixed provider to identify femto-to-gateway traffic and signalling, which may
need to be optimised in various ways.

Often, Internet-destined data is easily identified, as the mobile device connects to a

specific Internet APN (Access Point Name), which is a particular route across the
network allocated to particular services. It is common for operators to give assign
separate APNs for individual services such as the MMS (Multimedia Message
Service) server, Internet access or perhaps a dedicated connection for BlackBerries
or other devices. Most current mobile broadband traffic transits an Internet APN,
although that does not necessarily equate to value to the network operator.

Which offload?

The proliferation of offload types will inevitably lead to situations in which individual
users have simultaneous access to multiple options. Most residential femtocells will
be co-located with home WiFi. Small cells in public locations will coincide with WiFi
hotspots. A given device may even have access rights for multiple SSIDs (Service
Set Identifiers) on a single WiFi access, via different partnerships and affiliations. In

© Disruptive Analysis Ltd, November 2010 Bearer-aware policy management 7

 Disruptive Analysis Don’t Assume

future, devices will also be capable of connecting simultaneously to both cellular and
WiFi, exacerbating the situation still further.

This added complexity will lead to a broad range of possible scenarios conflicting –
with differing outcomes for the operator in terms of network load, cost and visibility /
control. Adding in the use of MiFi-style personal hotspots and tethering, it may even
become possible for an operator to offload traffic to another cellular network,
deliberately or “accidentally”.

[Note: the author is writing this section in a café, in which he can use the WiFi via the
café‟s own loyalty scheme, via an extension of his home broadband subscription, or
via his mobile operator‟s offload collaboration with the hotspot provider].

At the moment, very little thought is being given to the most likely or most
(un)desirable scenarios. Disruptive Analysis believes that a combination of rich
network monitoring, intelligent policy management, smart and usable client-side
connection management will be needed. In many scenarios, the operator may not
retain absolute control over the final outcome, but at least gaining an understanding
will be very important indeed.

The emergence of SIPTO and LIPA

A long-term potential option is around a forthcoming 3GPP standard called SIPTO,

standing for Selective IP Traffic Offload. This particularly relates to femtocell and
RAN offload, where particular traffic is routed via different connections directly to the
Internet, or via the operator‟s core. A related standard is called LIPA (Local IP
Access), which relates to the breakout of connectivity to the local network in the
home or office.

The Traffic Offload Function (TOF) is the key element in the network here, which will
be needed to perform a variety of tasks including policy enforcement and assorted
“border” functions such as dealing with Network Address Translation (NAT) headers
and lawful interception.

It remains unclear exactly what the mechanism and algorithms for selection policy
will be in SIPTO, or how these are constructed and maintained. Exactly what traffic
goes back via the operator core network, and what goes straight to the local network
or Internet? In some scenarios, it might be done with “shallow inspection”, such as
involving connections to particular APNs, or via particular ports.

However, that may not provide sufficient granularity – and in particular may mean
that the operator loses sight of valuable but low-volume information about user
behaviour. Consider a scenario in which a user requests a large 2GB video file to be
downloaded. It is definitely painful to ship a huge movie across the RAN and core
when it could be offloaded locally. But there is value to the operator in capturing
certain data about the transaction – the title of the movie, perhaps, or the content
provider. This meta-data becomes even more important if the user starts consuming
another operator‟s content or services – perhaps a 3rd-party Voice over IP (VoIP)
application from a competing telco. The question is how that 1MB of valuable
information is kept “on net”, while the other 1.999GB is diverted. Ultimately, it may
even be desirable or necessary to implement some form of packet inspection in the
WiFi router or femtocell itself.

© Disruptive Analysis Ltd, November 2010 Bearer-aware policy management 8

 Disruptive Analysis Don’t Assume

LIPA is particularly relevant for some home-networking scenarios, especially where

there is a desire to use UPnP (Universal Plug and Play) over a 3G femtocell. Use
cases might include connection of a mobile phone to the TV or home media server,
and in theory if the data transits licensed 3G / 4G spectrum, the operator needs to
maintain some visibility and control for legal reasons. (This would not generally apply
for WiFi connections, unless the operator somehow configured the device to only
allow “managed” WiFi access under its control – a scenario that Disruptive Analysis
feels is generally unlikely).

LIPA and SIPTO imply that some forms of data inspection – and in some instances,
active traffic-shaping and policy control – may need to be pushed out towards the
very edge of the network.

VoLTE, mashups and other future operator-hosted services

In the future, an increasing proportion of mobile operators‟ own services are going to
be IP-based. In particular, with the shift to LTE it will be necessary for voice services
to transition to VoIP – either with the 3GPP / GSMA-recommended VoLTE (Voice
over LTE) architecture based on IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem), or one of
numerous other possible mechanisms, such as VoLGA (Voice over LTE via Generic
Access) or operator partnerships with Skype or Google.

In such cases, it is likely that operators will want their own VoIP traffic (and perhaps
related elements such as video-sharing) to be given the highest priority and protected
against unnecessary latency or possible congestion. This may mean a different
approach to offload is needed for such protected services – especially when the path
is unmanaged, routed via a 3rd-party‟s access such as WiFi or via femtocell
connected over an independent fixed-provider‟s broadband. Where the offload is
managed by a third party (or an operator‟s own affiliate), there will still be a need to
discriminate between VoIP and other services.

It is possible that the selection here will be aided by the choice of different APN
names for in-house services, which can be assigned to different classes of service.
However this may be more complex in situations where the operator works with a
third party such as Skype or an outsourcing provider. There may also be scenarios in
which an operator chooses not to offer its own VoIP, but instead to offer priority
treatment to the user‟s preferred provider under a “bring your own telephony”
arrangement. Even greater complexity may arise where voice or other operator
capabilities are “mashed up” with web or additional applications – such as player-to-
player conversations within an Internet video-game.

In such scenarios, DPI may well be needed to assemble a complete picture of how
the user is communicating – and whether a given service needs protection against
offload to a lower-quality network, or even might benefit from well-managed offload
instead. There will also be requirements to anchor the call and manage mobility, if
offload processes are not to break important cellular capabilities such as handoff.
This suggests that any “offload control function” will need to work closely with
elements such as RNCs (Radio Network Controllers), especially where the user has
to move between two RNCs, as this process is normally assisted by the SGSN
(Serving GPRS Support Node).

© Disruptive Analysis Ltd, November 2010 Bearer-aware policy management 9

 Disruptive Analysis Don’t Assume

Fixed and cable providers

At present, fixed broadband operators generally tolerate the use of user-configured

access to home WiFi from cellular devices. Often, with devices such as PCs or
smartphones, the WiFi setup may be done purely by the user, without any form of
prompting from operator-controlled software. Attitudes may change in cases where
the MNO-provided connection software deliberately encourages WiFi offload,
perhaps via prompts for the user to input security credentials.

Often, it will be almost-impossible to distinguish „operator-encouraged‟ offloading

against user-chosen, but the awareness that this is occurring is likely to harden
negotiating stances, or attitudes towards throttling or other traffic management
techniques. There are two different scenarios here – if the device just „breaks out‟ on
to the open Internet, it looks essentially indistinguishable from a PC or other product.
But if it establishes a connection to a known operator gateway‟s IP address, perhaps
with a VPN „tunnel‟ for that telco‟s own services, then it is much easier to identify.

Using DPI, it may be possible for a fixed operator to start to piece together the
evidence of how mobile data is being offloaded to its infrastructure. That knowledge
may be useful in developing partnerships between fixed and wireless service
providers, or as a means of controlling such offload traffic if volumes rise to
unsustainable levels.

There may even be business models for the fixed / cable operators to assist in the
operation of femtocells – perhaps by “grooming” the connection for sync and
signalling, or even providing extra overhead bandwidth. For example, consider the
situation of a use who subscribes to 6Mbit/s broadband on a line that could actually
support 20Mbit/s. The excess capacity could enable offload traffic via a femto to
operate faster than the native DSL line speed, if the MNO paid a premium to its fixed
partner.

Figure: Fixed & cable telcos can use DPI for managed offload services

Source: Disruptive Analysis

© Disruptive Analysis Ltd, November 2010 Bearer-aware policy management 10

 Disruptive Analysis Don’t Assume

Application-specific offload

As mentioned above, mash-ups are likely to cause considerable difficulties for policy
management generally, and offload in particular. DPI implementations will need to be
aware of linkages between different streams of data, which may initially appear
distinct, but which mesh together in the device and the eyes of the user. Multi-tasking
operating systems may also mean that there is no “right” answer to offload, as
different applications might be optimised for use over different bearers.

The increasing richness of software and application used on smartphones and other
devices will no doubt cause further difficulties in the future – for example, as
important services move from being standalone native applications to become
browser-based functions, it may be more difficult to distinguish them effectively, or
apply them to an appropriate class or quality of service. At the moment, many QoS
parameters assume that Web traffic can be classed as delay-insensitive “interactive”
data. That may no longer hold true, for example if an investment company builds an
HTML5-based trading application. It is also not always true that voice is the most
important application, worthy of protection above other data services.

An open question here is whether application-centric offload will come from the
perspective of offloading everything except specific services (e.g., operator VoIP), or
vice versa, offloading only specific services (e.g., P2P file-sharing or video-streaming
from specified sites). Given the diversity and rapid evolution of new Internet-based
services, Disruptive Analysis feels that the former approach is more likely, as
otherwise operators will be forced to monitor new services continually – a huge and
never-ending task.

Another area of evolution with mobile broadband is around the different types of
network congestion caused by particular applications – for example, the impact of
sheer volume of traffic vs. signalling loads. It may be appropriate to offload signalling-
heavy traffic such as Instant Messaging (IM) and social networking in a different way
to bulk applications such as video downloads. Upstream-heavy traffic (e.g., P2P file-
sharing) may cause different problems to more downstream-oriented flows, and
again require differential treatment.

User-specific offload

At the moment, there is an assumption that all possible traffic that can be offloaded,
should be offloaded – but there may be instances where this is not the preferred
option. It may be that when the network is uncongested, operators might wish to
keep more traffic on-net, particularly compared with using WiFi. This might give
better control over Quality of Service (QoS), or permit valuable user data to be
captured that might otherwise be lost.

There may also be reasons to keep particular users on-net more than others,
perhaps because they are being prioritised – or perhaps because they have greater
sensitivity to the perceived security risks of offload, especially where it is unmanaged.
There could also be differential offload policies for roaming customers, for example
where the home operator has a different set of local offload partners to the visited
network.

© Disruptive Analysis Ltd, November 2010 Bearer-aware policy management 11

 Disruptive Analysis Don’t Assume

Offload and charging / billing

One of the usually-unmentioned consequences of mobile offload is how it fits with the
operator‟s billing and charging systems. As more wireless providers move to tiered
and capped pricing for data, or more sophisticated tariffs based on other variables,
offload needs to be factored in.

There have already been cases in which WiFi traffic is essentially invisible and zero-
rated against the user‟s quota, while using a femtocell from the same provider counts
against the monthly allowance. Given some evidence that good offload performance
can increase overall traffic usage, this raises the invidious possibility that the end-
user may “pay triple” for the data plan: their home broadband, the femtocell itself, and
maybe even extra overage charges.

There may also be issues where operators attempt to charge differential prices for
certain applications or services – the notion that watching the same content, on the
same device, in the same location may cost different amounts may lead to customer
confusion and dissatisfaction.

As a result, it is going to become very important that billing systems become “offload
aware” for a whole set of possible reasons. The same rationale may also need to be
extended to other areas of Operating and Billing Support Systems (OSS / BSS), for
example customer service functions.

Conclusions
This paper has highlighted the importance of mobile traffic offload, as well as the
growing number of ways it can be achieved. Over time, the use cases for each are
likely to get significantly more complex – and operators will seek to differentiate their
services and better support customers with more granular approaches to offload than
today‟s architectures permit.

In theory, any offload element ought to have some form of DPI capabilities as well,
and be able to use policy management to determine what to offload, how to manage
the flows to and from the core network, and communicate with other policy elements
elsewhere. While this sounds sensible, it is likely to become much more complex with
local offload via femtocells or WiFi, together with scenarios such as shared and
managed offload involving 3rd-party operators, or multi-radio devices.

The net result is that operators will ultimately have to blend network-side DPI and
offload capabilities with greater control and visibility at the device level – for example,
through better connection-management software. They may also need to
interoperate with other players‟ offload solutions to develop more holistic and shared
approaches.

As a starting point, a much better understanding is required of how users are actually
using offload today, what costs are saved, what improvements gained – and what
unintended secondary problems and issues might be generated.

Overall, Disruptive Analysis believes that DPI functions have an important role to play
in managing offload for the mutual benefit of all parties, especially as the more
sophisticated scenarios start to become real. In terms of where in the network it will

© Disruptive Analysis Ltd, November 2010 Bearer-aware policy management 12

 Disruptive Analysis Don’t Assume

be best to put DPI functions, Disruptive Analysis believes that this will need to move
closer to the edge, perhaps in some sort of gateway box which performs security
tasks and other management functions. However, this will be largely dependent on
the type(s) of offload being exploited – and how much of the work could also be done
elsewhere – for example in a handset-resident client.

© Disruptive Analysis Ltd, November 2010 Bearer-aware policy management 13

 Disruptive Analysis Don’t Assume

About Disruptive Analysis

Disruptive Analysis is a technology-focused advisory firm focused on the mobile and wireless
industry. Founded by experienced analyst Dean Bubley, it provides critical commentary and
consulting support to telecoms / IT vendors, operators, regulators, users, investors and
intermediaries. Disruptive Analysis focuses on communications and information technology
industry trends, particularly in areas with complex value chains, rapid technical / market
evolution, or multi-sided business relationships.

Currently, the company is focusing on mobile broadband, network policy-management,

operator business models and services, voice and personal communications applications
including VoIP and IMS, smartphones, Internet/operator/vendor ecosystems and the role of
governments and regulation in next-generation networks.

The company produces research reports and white papers, conducts consulting projects on
technology strategy and business models, and provides speakers and moderators for
workshops and conferences.

For more detail on Disruptive Analysis publications, workshops and consulting /

advisory services, please contact information@disruptive-analysis.com

Disruptive Analysis‟ motto is “Don’t Assume”.

Website: www.disruptive-analysis.com
Blog: disruptivewireless.blogspot.com
Twitter: @disruptivedean

Intellectual Property Rights / Disclaimer

All Rights Reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in

any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
the prior permission of the publisher, Disruptive Analysis Ltd.

Every reasonable effort has been made to verify research undertaken during the work on this
document. Findings, conclusions and recommendations are based on information gathered
in good faith from both primary and secondary sources, whose accuracy it is not always
possible to guarantee. Disruptive Analysis Ltd. disclaims all warranties as to the accuracy,
completeness or adequacy of such information. As such no liability whatever can be accepted
for actions taken based on any information that may subsequently prove to be incorrect. The
opinions expressed here are subject to change without notice.

© Disruptive Analysis Ltd, November 2010 Bearer-aware policy management 14